Apologetic Evangelism 101: Directing Our Apologetic Focus

laserEvangelism is a commanded discipline that many Christians tend to ignore and they provide a variety of excuses as to why they shy away from any form of evangelism.

Some Christians may think they do not have the personality to engage a stranger in a discussion on the topic of religious faith. Others believe they aren’t smart enough to answer difficult questions and objections. While still others sadly don’t care to bother anyone at all with the Gospel message because they think religious belief is too personal and it is none of the Christian’s business to tell a person he is wrong about his convictions. Thus, my goal with these articles on the subject of apologetic evangelism is two-fold:

a) to stir up a desire in Christian folks that proclaiming the Gospel is not an option, and

b) challenge them to craft their skills in presenting the gospel message to non-Christians with a solidly biblical apologetic method.

Just to review a moment.

The popular approach to apologetics and evangelism that most Christians are familiar involves meeting the non-Christian on what is considered neutral, unbiased ground. This is done by presenting to him a series of philosophical, logic-chopping arguments and lines of tangible, empirical evidence that are believed can clearly argue for the truth claims of Christianity. The evidence is laid out so both the Christian and non-Christian can evaluate it together to determine if the evidence genuinely affirms what the Christian faith proclaims. The Christian then appeals to the non-Christian’s reason so as to get him to conclude with the Christian that the particular evidences under consideration are undeniable and self-evident and thus affirming the validity and reliability of the Christian faith.Even though that may be the popular approach in evangelistic apologetics, I believe it has some serious problems. I believe there is an approach that is not only more biblical, but even more effective when challenging the non-Christian. I will call this the worldview approach


Rather than focusing our apologetic defense of Christianity upon the presentation of specific lines of evidence and philosophical arguments that appeal to an unbeliever’s reason, with the worldview approach, an evangelist begins by building his apologetics around some specific insights revealed in Scripture concerning human nature.

Let me briefly summarize those insights:

1) All mankind bears the image of God. Genesis 1:26,27 tells us that when God created man, He created him to be His image bearer. Simply put, men were created to think rationally, ethically, and have their thoughts reflect God’s thoughts as they live in the world He created.

2) Sin has separated mankind from God. That is manifested in many ways through the attitude and behavior of men:

– They have no desire to love God. (Romans 3:10-18)

– Their minds are darkened to the point they often think irrationally about the world in which they live. (Ephesians 4:17-19)

– Their hearts are rebellious against God so that they wish to have nothing to do with Him and in point of fact fight against His sovereignty. (Romans 1:18-32; Psalm 2:1-4)

– Sin causes men to be oriented toward the world, away from God, so that they pursue their own lustful imaginations and the sinful desires found in their hearts. (1 Corinthians 2:14).

One important note to consider: though men are sinners with darkened minds, that doesn’t mean they are stupid and unable to function in life. Men can solve problems, invent new things, promote commerce, and build societies, so their sin nature does not make them a non-functioning invalid. The image of God stamped on a person does remain intact. However, sin creates a disconnect, disrupting how men relate to their creator.

3) Men suppress the truth of God. Romans 1:18 ff. tells us that men know God is real. There is no need to convince any non-Christian with evidence the truth that God exists. All men already know it in their hearts; they reject it because they hate God (Psalm 14:1). What men do is use the imaginations of their heart to explain away God’s authority to define His world, man’s reality, and His command for submission to His sovereignty.

Instead, with the creation of their various alternative explanations, men seek to redefine our world apart from God. They seek to establish their own authority over what is believed to be their own lives. All false religions, for example, are not misinformed attempts by well-intentioned people to worship the true God, but rather are expressions of rebellious hearts seeking to establish their own righteousness apart from God.

As a result of those factors caused by the impact of a sinful nature, the Christian apologist is more aware of where the non-Christian is coming from and he can better focus his apologetic approach when engaging that non-Christian. When he presents biblical truth and the gospel message, the Christian should endeavor to aim his approach toward four key areas:

First, with a biblical understanding of human nature, there isn’t any neutral ground on which to meet the non-Christian. The popular apologetic method suggests that men can evaluate facts and evidence objectively without any bias. Additionally, it is believed the evidence is self-evident and any person who uses common sense and reason will see the reasonableness of the self-evident evidence.

However, the biblical perspective does not concede that any neutral ground exists anywhere. As we saw above, the Bible explicitly tells us that men evaluate their world through minds darkened in sin and separated from God. Hence, they interpret the evidence and facts in a rather un-neutral way; a way that cleverly explains away the evidence and facts pointing to the reality of God.

Second, all men interpret evidence and evaluate their world filtered through a set of presuppositions, or what could be considered unquestioned axioms that are taken for granted by the non-Christian. Those presuppositions are not supported by specific beliefs, but rather they form the means by which a person assess other beliefs and draws conclusions about the world where he lives; The glasses he uses to view his world.

Atheists, for example, assume no supernatural exists, because they claim they have no tangible evidence of the supernatural. Thus, any evidence presented by the Christian in defense of the Christian faith will be interpreted according to that anti-supernatural presupposition or axiom. Nothing the Christian presents to the atheist will convince him of Christian truth claims as long as his anti-supernaturalism remains his cornerstone presupposition.

In fact, it is accurate to say that all men on earth, regardless of their station in life, have foundational presuppositions they assume are correct when they look out over their world. Even Christians utilizing the popular apologetic method have some starting presuppositions. For example, the notion that the non-Christian can be reached on neutral ground and they can reason in the same way the Christian does when considering the validity of specific evidences. There is nothing wrong with presuppositions filtering how we view reality. The issue is what authority establishes those presuppositions and if pressed, can the person justify or render an account for their validity?

Third, all men, then, have formulated a worldview in which they intersect and connect with the world. A worldview is a person’s philosophical outlook on life consisting of the most foundational faith commitments a person uses to interpret the world and the life we experience. It can be religious based, like Bible-belt, red state evangelicalism, as well as non-religious, like Manhattan metropolitanism.  Whatever the case, the worldview will be defined and shaped by what the person considers to be the ultimate authority informing his worldview.

For most people, their ultimate authority is their own human autonomy. That is, the individual person makes himself the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. Once again, that is because men have minds darkened in sin and they are separated from God. Their personal bent is oriented toward the earth away from heaven and God’s sovereign authority, so that their ultimate “authority,” even if we can call it that, is generally their own selfish hearts.

People may claim lip-service to an authority outside of themselves like a religious institution or even secular science, but when scrutinized closely, their philosophical outlook on life begins and ends with what personally pleases them. Even the authority they give lip-service to may be twisted and molded to satisfy their whims.

Fourth, men live inconsistent to what they know to be true. On the one hand, non-Christians continue to live according to the image of God stamped upon their inner being. They have a sense of absolute morality, of right and wrong, of justice, beauty, and logic. Yet on the other hand, in spite of that image of God, they often live inconsistently to the worldview they have created for themselves.

For instance, an animals rights proponent would argue that men and animals are all equal. A chicken has no more worth than a human, or a horse, or any other animal that lives on the earth. However, if pressed a bit, animal rights activists would more than likely adhere to an evolutionary belief of origins. In doing so, they live blissfully unaware of the radical inconsistency between their animal rights activism and evolutionary theory. For if Darwinian evolution is true, then natural selection favors those species that are stronger and able to survive over others. Humans, according to evolutionary theory, would be the strongest and most capable of surviving, and if humanity decided it would be in the best interests for their survival to eliminate bothersome, lower species of animals, what rights do they really have?

With those four basic theological proponents in place, the challenge then for the evangelistic apologist is to exploit those four areas in an apologetic encounter by forcing a non-Christian to provide a justification for why he believes what he believes. Basically, the Christian is challenging the authenticity of the non-Christian’s worldview. A Christian can accomplish that by demonstrating the irrationality of the non-Christian’s particular worldview, as well as challenge him to justify his presupposition in light of his chosen perspective on reality.

The Christian does that, not by starting from a position of neutrality that attempts to argue toward God and divine revelation, but from a position that is unabashedly within the circle of divine revelation and argues from the Christian understanding of the world, man’s condition, and the redemption of Jesus Christ. Instead of avoiding the Bible and bring it into the discussion after lines of evidence for it have been set forth and agreed upon, the Christian appeals to it from the start as his ultimate authority.

8 thoughts on “Apologetic Evangelism 101: Directing Our Apologetic Focus

  1. Pingback: Articles on Apologetics and Evangelism | hipandthigh

  2. I must say that I find it odd that one who so opposed to “postmodern relativity” would be so eager to talk constantly about “worldviews”. You really seem to be taken with this word, almost as much as you’re taken with the word “men.”

    I understand the value of the term when one wishes to dismiss the evidence against an old earth. In that context, it’s the argument of last resort, and I know that a person knows that the data are against them when the haul out the old “worldview argument” in a discussion of geology.

    However, by repeatedly pointing out that we all filter our observations, experiences, actions, etc. through our individual “worldviews”, I think that you are only making the case that an individual’s understanding of the world is relative and uncertain. You see things your way, and I see things my way. How we see the world depends on who we are. I understand that you believe that you’ve solved the problem by declaring your particular worldview to be the one true worldview. But that’s just your worldview.

    See? It’s all relative. You have your view, and I have mine.

    By the way, I think it’s worth noting that “worldviews” are not unique to humans. My dog has a “worldview”, too. He also interprets evidence and evaluate their world filtered through a set of presuppositions. (Just an passing observation.)

  3. The amusing thing about your comment is the fact that you so readily accept so-called geological “absolutes” but will reject moral absolutes. But oh well.

    In a similar fashion, you really value the words “evidence” and “data.” You invest into them an unquestionable infallibility. When ever there are glaring holes in your view of things, you haul out the old, “but the overwhelming evidence thus-and-such” and presto, all is well again.

    BTW, you dog does have a worldview, a biblical worldview. He does exactly like God intended him to do as a dog. He is actually quite obedient to the laws of God and does not actively seek to suppress the truth of God such as yourself. You would do well to learn from your dog.

  4. “Geological absolute”? “Unquestionable infallibility”? What are you talking about? Your reply indicates that you don’t understand me at all.

    My dog has biblical worldview? Obedient to the laws of God? I don’t think that you are following what I was saying in my passing observation.

    In any event, your reply does not addresses or answers my points. It’s just more of your particular, very human, worldview. Maybe your “truth of God” is just the opinion of a man.

    Oh well, indeed.

  5. Apologies for the typos. Should read…”your reply does not address or answer my points.” No infallibility here.

  6. Let’s try leaving this in this box to get things in the proper order…

    Apologies for the typos. Should read…”your reply does not address or answer my points.” No infallibility here.

  7. Pingback: Presuppositional apologetics links: Mid-November 2013 | The Domain for Truth

Leave me a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s